(Hats-off to Corey Meyer over at The Blood of My Kindred)

Since its inception, I have strived to remain fairly a-political here on “Blog or Die.” Still, every now and then I feel the need to rant about the misrepresentation and/or manipulation of history in support of an agenda. These past few months have given us much reason for concern. From the textbook myths of Black Confederate battalions to the misrepresentation of the Constitution, America desperately needs a history lesson. My recent criticism of the Tea Party garnered me lots of emails (most ‘pro’ but some ‘con’) and even an award. As that post dealt with what I consider to be political propaganda, this post deals with flat out lunacy.

Now I will be the first to admit that I used to like the original Glenn Beck Show. As a Libertarian, I enjoyed the fact that he attacked both sides of the aisle evenly. I also appreciated his journey toward faith. Unfortunately, something happened to Mr. Beck over the last few years, as he has gone from a witty political-alarmist to a ranting-village-idiot. From routinely misquoting Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, to comparing the president to Karl Marx, Beck is just as ignorant and outrageous as those he claims to despise. He is, in my opinion, a more-conservative version of Keith Obermann whose primary goal is to fan the flames of political discontent and further the divide between parties.

That’s entertainment folks and I get that. I understand that these guys/gals are media whores trying to get ratings. What I don’t get is how these seemingly intelligent people can be so stupid, so often. Frankly, it scares me that many members of their audiences believe what they say to be the truth, and this leads to the propagation of misinformation. Corey Meyer over at The Blood of My Kindred recently posted a video of Glenn Beck defending the Three-Fifths Compromise. What makes this clip disturbing is his interpretation of it and the claim that if blacks were counted as a full person they could never be set free. What?

According to Mr. Beck, anyone who finds the Three-Fifths clause to be offensive has quote: "a lack of understanding of history, who the Founding Fathers were, what the Constitution says, or it is just cowardice." He then says, "The Three-Fifths Clause...that's an outrage, unless you know why they put that in there. They put that in there because if slaves in the South were counted as full human-beings, they could never abolish slavery. ...It was a tremendous story about our Founders, about the genius of the Constitution."  

Beck's statement implies to me, that the Founders put that clause in there as a steeping-stone towards emancipation. That is wrong. I blogged about this back in October of 2009 when I was reading Gary Wills’ book “Negro President” Jefferson and the Slave Power. At the time I was struck by how much the federal government was influenced, even controlled by the institution of bondage. My conclusion: slavery equaled southern political power, thus southern political power required slavery. Chapter 1 really caught my attention:

In the sixty-two years between Washington’s election and the Compromise of 1850, for example, slaveholders controlled the presidency for fifty-years, the Speaker’s chair for forty-one years, and the chairmanship of House Ways and Means [the most important committee] for forty-two years. The only men to be re-elected president – Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson – were all slaveholders. The men who sat in the Speaker’s chair the longest – Henry Clay, Andrew Stevenson, and Nathaniel Macon – were slaveholders. Eighteen out of thirty-one Supreme Court justices were slaveholders.

To quote Corey's quote (taken from Digital History):

How can Mr. Beck imply that the Three-Fifths Compromise was added to benefit those who fell under it? Maybe you can twist this into some form of validity, but my issue is with intent. This was a way for the South to retain a competitive share of political power and NOT in retrospect, a step closer towards the abolishment of the institution of slavery. In order for the South's power to grow (and it did), slavery had to grow (and it did).

And why can’t anyone ever admit that many of the Founding Fathers were racists, the majority of southern framers were slaveholders, and that the very country that was founded on the principals of liberty and independence spent hundreds of years withholding that very freedom from a large portion of its inhabitants because of their race? It doesn’t make them any less important or revolutionary. It simply acknowledges their prejudices which must be viewed within the context of the period.

I have no less admiration for the Founding Fathers because I see them as what they truly were, men, with the same faults and sins of their colleagues and contemporaries. They were brilliant, and ambitious, and we should look to them for example, BUT at the same time we must remember that they were human and capable of being wrong. Franklin was a playboy who cheated on his wife. Washington refused to allow the recruitment of blacks into his army despite their dwindling numbers. Jefferson likely wanted America to be more like France. They would not support either political party today, nor would they appreciate the fringe parties who have hijacked their legacies.

I think that I can say, without a doubt, that they were intelligent enough to know their history and would be just as outraged as I am that Glenn Beck is ‘re-inventing’ his own form to support an agenda. Worse off, I wonder what those who fell under the Three-Fifths Compromise would think about Mr. Beck’s claim that it was really a step towards abolishing slavery. 

Someone once said that Adolph Hitler was a good leader up until he killed all those Jews. Thank God he didn’t have his own talk-show.